Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 3, 2004, 10:53 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15
Default Sigma 105mm Macro Lens

Anyone have experience with the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro lens? Do I understand that this is a normal fixed 105mm lens with macro capabilities? I love macro photography but Iím also looking for fast lenses for indoor sports, would this lens fit that? Any other lenses that others could recommend that would meet this? Thanks.
KeithofHB is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 4, 2004, 1:02 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 575
Default

I have that lens, and use don my 10D, it is wonderful.
I would very highly recommend it for macro photography. However, I would very much NOT recommend it for shooting anything sports related, as the AF is incredibly slow on this lens!
If you would like to see a few macro shots with the lens, check out my website: www.pbase.com/simms65/macro
Gandalf065 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2004, 8:58 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Something else to conside is the distance you want/need between your subject and you.

For some things it doesn't matter (flowers, stamps, coins) but for other things it matters (butterflies, bees.) If you plan on taking pictures of animsl with it, you might consider the Sigma 180 macro. Also very good (I'm told, I'm only eyeing it right now) and lets you stay a little further away from the subject.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2004, 9:46 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

Remember the Sigma 180macro is an f3.5 lens, and the 105mm is an f2.8. You mentioned sports will that make a difference? The 180 is what I would call a slow lens and hunts a bit in lower light, it also cost twice as much as the 105. Both of these lenses are very good as macros and although they both will focus to infinite that is not their forte. In my opinion you are looking for a compromise solution, it doesn't exist. If you enjoy macro work get either one depending on working distance as Eric mentioned. If sports is your interest get the 70-200 f2.8. You can't haul wood in a Limo and you shouldn't take aPick-up to the Prom.

Here is a shot with the Sigma 180 macro.
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2004, 12:10 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks for the advice and excellent pictures. Iíll probably look for two lenses as my solution for this.
KeithofHB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2004, 6:13 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Very nice butteryfly shot Tomsch. I'm going to a butterfly house next weekend, I hope I can get something that good (but I don't have a macro lens, so we'll see. I'm going to try tubes on my 100-400... not the same, but I think it will do ok.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2004, 6:52 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

I have a shooting buddy that doesn't have a macro, he uses extension tubes on his 70-200 L IS f2.8 and he gets marvelous results. I have no idea what the light will be like with your 100-400. You don't know untill you try it, you may fall onto a killer combo. Good luck, I'll be watching for the results.
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2004, 9:20 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Thanks, I'll post something.

I've done fairly well before with some dragonflies:



The noise is a little high (need to run it though neatimage) but I like it.

Eric

ps. Ok, I guess I digressed a bit.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2004, 11:15 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 227
Default

Tomsh,

I'm looking at getting a macro lens and was serious considering going with the Sigma 105, I didn't want to lug around a big macro lens like the 180mm.

How big is the lens? I find my Tamron 70-210 f2.8 to be a too heavy on my DR. That's why I've wanted to stay away from the 180mm macros. And does it come with a tripod mount?

I'd use it mostly for flowers and butterflies and small animals where my zooms can't focus as close as needed.

My alternative might be to go with the Canon 200mm f2.8 and add extension tubes and get the 85mm f1.8 and do the same.
ursa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2004, 1:18 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

The Sigma 180 macro does come with a tripod mounting ring, its just over 7in in length, 72mm at the objective end and nearly two pounds. All of these specs are listed at Sigma's site or B&H or Adorama or Ritz Camera. But hey thats alright I just got cable after 10 years of dial-up service so I don't mind looking things up as its still a novelity.
Would you like me to find out when to plant peas in your zone?
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:31 AM.